So far 2009 has been a pretty terrible year for film. 2006 and 2007 were both amazing years in an otherwise weak decade, but 2008 and now 2009 have been pretty bad. At the start of the year I set a top 10 most anticipated films of the year, and now with just 5 weeks to go I have seen 8 of those 10 films. Only 1 of those 8 is in my top 10 films for this year, and that’s the Coen Bros. film “A Serious Man”.
When I look at my top 10, thankfully there are some surprises I wasn’t expecting. I’m not going to give them away because we are going to reveal those picks in an upcoming episode of FilminFocus. When I look at the end of the year, there are still 20 films I really want to see, so there is great chance for redemption as the year closes.
Here are the films I am most looking forward to as we close out the year:
Invictus
Everybody’s Fine
The Princess and the Frog
The Road
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Nine
Red Cliff
What films are you most looking forward to that will be released before the end of the year?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
What is a film buff?
Have you ever had this conversation before? You’re talking to someone about movies and they declare themselves to be a major film buff, so you start talking flicks. In the process of the conversation you mention a film, say Lawrence of Arabia. They look at you with sort of a puzzled look so you can tell they have no idea what you’re talking about. So you say, “You know, Lawrence of Arabia. The David lean film starring Peter O’Toole?” They’re lost. “I’ve never heard of that movie” they say. You say, “It’s only considered by most to be one of the greatest films in history.” They respond, “When did it come out?” You then say, “1962”. Then they say, almost with relief, “Well of course I haven’t heard of that, it came out like 15 years before I was born.” My response is always the same. “Have you ever heard of George Washington?” I say. They say “Well of course”; then I say “Interesting, he died WAY before you were born.”
There are those that innocently have yet to explore films outside of those noticed by popular culture. While I get this to some degree, it’s hard to say you’re a film buff when you haven’t seen most of the truly great films in history. There are others, like my wife, who actually refuses to watch anything made in a different language than her own or anything before 1980. Now for my wife, she escapes my mockery because she doesn’t call herself a film buff even though she watches a lot of movies. She likes what she likes and she’s cool with that. But I can’t count the amount of times I've had the above conversation with self proclaimed film buffs who haven’t seen the majority of important works. I don’t mean this to sound self righteous, but it works with all manners of discipline. It’s hard to proclaim yourself a football buff if you’ve never heard of Johnny Unitas, or a music buff if you’ve never listened to Robert Johnson, a man declared by many great musicians to be the most influential musician of the past 100 years.
Again, I’m not attempting some form of snobbish elitism. I actually hate that kind of thinking. But this is a matter of importance to me because its sad to see so many great films, that are so accessible through DVD, go so unnoticed even by people who think they really “know” film. If you don’t want to explore the great treasures of film than that’s your choice and I have no problem with that, but just be honest about the extent of your fandom and know that to be a film buff means to broaden yourself out through the scope of film both historical and international.
There are those that innocently have yet to explore films outside of those noticed by popular culture. While I get this to some degree, it’s hard to say you’re a film buff when you haven’t seen most of the truly great films in history. There are others, like my wife, who actually refuses to watch anything made in a different language than her own or anything before 1980. Now for my wife, she escapes my mockery because she doesn’t call herself a film buff even though she watches a lot of movies. She likes what she likes and she’s cool with that. But I can’t count the amount of times I've had the above conversation with self proclaimed film buffs who haven’t seen the majority of important works. I don’t mean this to sound self righteous, but it works with all manners of discipline. It’s hard to proclaim yourself a football buff if you’ve never heard of Johnny Unitas, or a music buff if you’ve never listened to Robert Johnson, a man declared by many great musicians to be the most influential musician of the past 100 years.
Again, I’m not attempting some form of snobbish elitism. I actually hate that kind of thinking. But this is a matter of importance to me because its sad to see so many great films, that are so accessible through DVD, go so unnoticed even by people who think they really “know” film. If you don’t want to explore the great treasures of film than that’s your choice and I have no problem with that, but just be honest about the extent of your fandom and know that to be a film buff means to broaden yourself out through the scope of film both historical and international.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Genres and formulas
I really love to view films through the lens of genres. I have certain genres that I love more than others, and there are usually reasons other than simply taste that I rank genres the way I do. Taste certainly plays a factor, but one of the things about film that I pay close attention to is formula. Not all formula’s are bad, for instance the standard “3 act” formula that many films follow usually works quite well (although its not always necessary). This formula can be misused, as in “Australia” where the 3 acts felt more like 3 different movies, bust most films use this formula so effectively that most people don’t even notice that the formula is in play (which is often proof that it’s being used effectively).
However, some formulas are very much damaging to a film when they are used too often in other films released within a few years of it. And this plays in with genres because some genres are guiltier of rehashing formulas over and over again than other genres are. For example, the horror genre is terribly guilty of using the “gore/porn” formula far too much over the past ten years. What this has done is that it has made the entire genre too predictable and watered down, meaning most horror films released in the past ten years are unwatchable, and when a horror film is released that doesn’t follow the “gore/porn” formula it is probably praised and welcomed more than it should be simply because it is refreshingly different in this era than most films of its genre.
Romantic comedy (although more of a sub genre) is also very guilty of formula abuse. Think about it: guy meets girl, guy and girl don’t like each other much, circumstances put guy and girl in unrealistic awkward situations where they have to get to know each other, guy and girl almost let love escape them, guy and girl realize their love for each other and pull it together in the end (Recently think “The Proposal” and “The Ugly Truth”). Romantic comedies are even guilty of more than one formula being used all too often. Then when a romantic comedy comes along like “500 Days of Summer” it’s easy to love because it’s different.
The list goes on. How many recent disaster flicks have used the whole “normal guy evades natural disaster to save his family…and accidentally saves the world at the same time” formula? How many sports films have used the “underdog beats the odds to take down a team fifty times more talented then them to win the title” formula?
Some people don’t mind these formulas, but for me, I’ve found that when I rank genres from favorite to least favorite that the genres that are the guiltiest of an overuse of formula are also the genres that end up at the bottom of my list. I guess, like many people, I just get tired of the same old thing.
Maybe sometime soon we will do a show on Film in Focus where we rank our favorite genres and sub genres. What are yours?
However, some formulas are very much damaging to a film when they are used too often in other films released within a few years of it. And this plays in with genres because some genres are guiltier of rehashing formulas over and over again than other genres are. For example, the horror genre is terribly guilty of using the “gore/porn” formula far too much over the past ten years. What this has done is that it has made the entire genre too predictable and watered down, meaning most horror films released in the past ten years are unwatchable, and when a horror film is released that doesn’t follow the “gore/porn” formula it is probably praised and welcomed more than it should be simply because it is refreshingly different in this era than most films of its genre.
Romantic comedy (although more of a sub genre) is also very guilty of formula abuse. Think about it: guy meets girl, guy and girl don’t like each other much, circumstances put guy and girl in unrealistic awkward situations where they have to get to know each other, guy and girl almost let love escape them, guy and girl realize their love for each other and pull it together in the end (Recently think “The Proposal” and “The Ugly Truth”). Romantic comedies are even guilty of more than one formula being used all too often. Then when a romantic comedy comes along like “500 Days of Summer” it’s easy to love because it’s different.
The list goes on. How many recent disaster flicks have used the whole “normal guy evades natural disaster to save his family…and accidentally saves the world at the same time” formula? How many sports films have used the “underdog beats the odds to take down a team fifty times more talented then them to win the title” formula?
Some people don’t mind these formulas, but for me, I’ve found that when I rank genres from favorite to least favorite that the genres that are the guiltiest of an overuse of formula are also the genres that end up at the bottom of my list. I guess, like many people, I just get tired of the same old thing.
Maybe sometime soon we will do a show on Film in Focus where we rank our favorite genres and sub genres. What are yours?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Viewing styles
Well here we are friends, blogger world.
I’m excited about these blogs that Jason and I will be writing. There promises to be a lot of variety between the two of us, so I hope you all find something interesting in at least one of our posts each week. I can’t wait for feedback, so please engage. Ill respond to what I can.
One film conversation that has always interested me is what I call “viewing style”. Many people who watch film regularly may not know that they have a viewing style but everyone does. We all bring our philosophies and presuppositions into anything we do, including the way we watch movies. The way I see it there are two major viewing styles, and then a third is created when the two styles are blended together into a hybrid style of viewing.
The first viewing style is what I call the “objective viewing style”. This style is characterized by people who watch films and judge them according to their elements and execution. This would include judging things from within the film like cinematography, art direction, acting, sound, editing, etc… The objectivist need not even like a film to rate it very high if they can say that they believe that on an objective level the film was done well. The objectivist usually looks for a standard as far outside of themselves as possible, appealing to consensus of those that are knowledgeable about the movie making process to determine what constitutes good filmmaking versus bad filmmaking. The more knowledgeable a viewer becomes about film the easier it is to recognize which films meet these objective standards and which ones fall short.
I have a friend that is as true of an objectivist when it comes to viewing styles as I have ever seen. When he watches a film that is an objective masterpiece, he can easily hand it a 5 star rating – even if he didn’t care for the film. But when a film like “Rush Hour” comes along, one he really enjoys, he can rate the film at around 3 stars without conviction because he knows that while he enjoys the film much more than the previous film he gave 5 stars to – Rush Hour is not really a good movie from an objective prospective.
The 2007 film “There Will Be Blood” was a great benefactor of this style of viewing. The film was nominated for multiple Oscars because it met every objective standard. No one viewing the film objectively could ignore the brilliance of the cinematography, art direction, score, and perfect acting. But when I asked people if they enjoyed the film, most said that they didn’t.
The vast majority of film critics would fall into this first group.
The second viewing style is one that I call “subjective viewing style”. This style is very much the opposite of the previous one. People who watch films subjectively care far more about their enjoyment of a film that they care whether or not the film is actually any good. The elements and execution of the film are far less important than whether or not you were entertained. The objectivist could outright reject a film like “2001: A Space Odyssey” because they were bored or didn’t get it, but they could readily embrace a film like “The Fast and the Furious” because it was fun and kept their attention.
Obviously the vast majority of the movie going public falls into this group, which is why Oscar nominated films don’t make much money and critics slam on films that make more money than the national debt. (And yes this is the real reason – not because critics don’t know anything).
So which do I ascribe to? I fall into the third group which is a hybrid of the two. I was recently watching a movie review given by the great film critic Michael Phillips on the film “Whip It”. He said, paraphrasing – “The critic in me hated this film for being formulaic and predictable, but the fan in me loved this film for being charming, fun, and entertaining, so I say see it!” This is a very healthy way to see film. Phillips knew that the film wasn’t any good, but he decided to like it anyway.
Sometimes I lean towards the objectivist in me when a film makes too many mistakes, but I also want to be able to give 4 stars to “Cant Buy Me Love” simply because of the nostalgia of what that silly little movie means to me. If a film missteps too much, its death. But some films misstep just enough to keep it from death and the fan in me embraces the film despite its problems.
Here is how it works for my ratings. A film has to meet both standards – my objective and subjective standards – to receive 4 ½ or 5 stars. If a film is brilliant but I don’t enjoy it, I can’t give it more than 4. If I enjoy a film but it’s not very good, I can’t give it more than 4.
What about you? Where do you lean?
I’m excited about these blogs that Jason and I will be writing. There promises to be a lot of variety between the two of us, so I hope you all find something interesting in at least one of our posts each week. I can’t wait for feedback, so please engage. Ill respond to what I can.
One film conversation that has always interested me is what I call “viewing style”. Many people who watch film regularly may not know that they have a viewing style but everyone does. We all bring our philosophies and presuppositions into anything we do, including the way we watch movies. The way I see it there are two major viewing styles, and then a third is created when the two styles are blended together into a hybrid style of viewing.
The first viewing style is what I call the “objective viewing style”. This style is characterized by people who watch films and judge them according to their elements and execution. This would include judging things from within the film like cinematography, art direction, acting, sound, editing, etc… The objectivist need not even like a film to rate it very high if they can say that they believe that on an objective level the film was done well. The objectivist usually looks for a standard as far outside of themselves as possible, appealing to consensus of those that are knowledgeable about the movie making process to determine what constitutes good filmmaking versus bad filmmaking. The more knowledgeable a viewer becomes about film the easier it is to recognize which films meet these objective standards and which ones fall short.
I have a friend that is as true of an objectivist when it comes to viewing styles as I have ever seen. When he watches a film that is an objective masterpiece, he can easily hand it a 5 star rating – even if he didn’t care for the film. But when a film like “Rush Hour” comes along, one he really enjoys, he can rate the film at around 3 stars without conviction because he knows that while he enjoys the film much more than the previous film he gave 5 stars to – Rush Hour is not really a good movie from an objective prospective.
The 2007 film “There Will Be Blood” was a great benefactor of this style of viewing. The film was nominated for multiple Oscars because it met every objective standard. No one viewing the film objectively could ignore the brilliance of the cinematography, art direction, score, and perfect acting. But when I asked people if they enjoyed the film, most said that they didn’t.
The vast majority of film critics would fall into this first group.
The second viewing style is one that I call “subjective viewing style”. This style is very much the opposite of the previous one. People who watch films subjectively care far more about their enjoyment of a film that they care whether or not the film is actually any good. The elements and execution of the film are far less important than whether or not you were entertained. The objectivist could outright reject a film like “2001: A Space Odyssey” because they were bored or didn’t get it, but they could readily embrace a film like “The Fast and the Furious” because it was fun and kept their attention.
Obviously the vast majority of the movie going public falls into this group, which is why Oscar nominated films don’t make much money and critics slam on films that make more money than the national debt. (And yes this is the real reason – not because critics don’t know anything).
So which do I ascribe to? I fall into the third group which is a hybrid of the two. I was recently watching a movie review given by the great film critic Michael Phillips on the film “Whip It”. He said, paraphrasing – “The critic in me hated this film for being formulaic and predictable, but the fan in me loved this film for being charming, fun, and entertaining, so I say see it!” This is a very healthy way to see film. Phillips knew that the film wasn’t any good, but he decided to like it anyway.
Sometimes I lean towards the objectivist in me when a film makes too many mistakes, but I also want to be able to give 4 stars to “Cant Buy Me Love” simply because of the nostalgia of what that silly little movie means to me. If a film missteps too much, its death. But some films misstep just enough to keep it from death and the fan in me embraces the film despite its problems.
Here is how it works for my ratings. A film has to meet both standards – my objective and subjective standards – to receive 4 ½ or 5 stars. If a film is brilliant but I don’t enjoy it, I can’t give it more than 4. If I enjoy a film but it’s not very good, I can’t give it more than 4.
What about you? Where do you lean?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)